Self-serving stand

I don't get it. If the city of Lawrence wants to provide a service to some of its residents that will assist them in obtaining medical insurance, how is this of any concern to the Kansas Legislature? I am speaking of Lawrence's domestic registry for unmarried couples, and of Rep Lance Kinzer's, R-Olathe, shameful attempt to repeal it. Kinzer needs to go back and reread his job description, which is primarily to represent the needs of his own constituency. Repealing Lawrence's domestic registry will not benefit residents of Olathe or Johnson County. Probably half the people in Johnson County don't even know Lawrence has a domestic registry. Which is to be expected, since it does not affect them in any way.

If Mr. Kinzer has too much time on his hands, I bet some of his constituents have better ideas for how he could apply himself, like working to improve education, and to provide affordable and reliable transportation. Depriving others of opportunities to have a better life, just because you can, has nothing to do with public service; it has everything to do with self-service.

"~~Why don't KU employees, who are single, auction off their "partner' benefits.~~

Because that would be a very clear case of fraud."

As opposed to an unclear case of fraud?

"I don't get it. If the city of Lawrence wants to provide a service to some of its residents that will assist them in obtaining medical insurance, how is this of any concern to the Kansas Legislature?"

And I don't get how if some city in Utah wants to provide a service to residents which will help assist them in obtaining tax benefits, how is that of any concern to anyone else?

The letter writer completely ignores the fact that Lawrence's homosexual partnershp registry is not about health insurance or other benefits. If a company wants to provide an employee's homosexual partner with health insurance, they're welcome to do it.

You are an idiot and completely ignorant. Can't you read you stupid f*ck? This letter is not about the registry but about the actions of an elected representative who isn't serving his constituency and wasting their money.

I wonder if the unmarried heterosexual couples on the registry are seeking societal approval as well? I don't know but call me crazy but I imagine most if not all of the couples on the registry really don't give a flying f*ck about what you, religion, or society thinks about them.

And you both miss my point - the registry is not about legal benefits for heterosexual couples, although some may be using it for personal gain. Lawrence's gay registry is all about societal acceptance of homosexual behavior.

Think about it: Two or more individuals may enter into a legal contract with each other to make binding any number of agreements. Marriage, however, is a legal contract unlike any other. That's because there is an implied sexual component to it, in addition to the legal aspects. Marriage, between a man and a woman, is both a contract and endorsement of a sexual relationship.

As we all know, homosexual "marriage" is untennable because every society, across all people groups, in every moment in human history has rejected the gay sexual relationship as the foundation for birthing and rearing healthy children.

Many other societies, like Canada, recognize the validity of same-sex partnerships.

Marriage is both a secular contract and a religious ceremony - therein lies the problem.

Although gay/lesbian relationships may not be ideal for birthing children, they may be quite good for raising them. We seem to have a fairly large number of children who need to be adopted into good home.

Why should heterosexual couples enjoy the benefits of governmentally sanctioned relationships, including tax benefits, while homosexual couples are denied the same?

If we substituted another group, e.g. black people, I think the discrimination would be obvious.

And, fwiw, I am a straight, married white male and have no personal stake in this issue.

Several on this chat thread have labeled me stupid. Another calls me ignorant. Is this really going to be your argument? That I have low intelligence or incomplete facts? I think you just don't like my point of view, and you hate that there's logic behind it.

How about making a rational argument, which jafs does (and doesn't resort to expletives and name-calling).

SettingTheRecordStraight says:
"As we all know, homosexual "marriage" is untennable (sic) because every society, across all people groups, in every moment in human history has rejected the gay sexual relationship as the foundation for birthing and rearing healthy children."

Ah yes! Grand, monolithic "society". Society's greatest hits, depending on who comes up with the list, could read like this:
slavery, genocide, the caste system, legal violence against women, racism, tribalism, rigid conformity, despotism, witch burning, book burning, and on and on.

I guess this is the list SettingTheRecordStraight hangs on the wall and stares at vapidly, sitting there with his freedom of speech, religion and just general right to sit there in front of a computer with a world of information at his fingertips, so incurious about the world and ignorant of history.

Society has also worked to overturn those evils that were created by past societies, and the fight continues. And because it's a fight there are the dead-enders like SettingTheRecordStraight that will continue fighting for the evils of the past. Why? Maybe it is self-hatred projected upon others, maybe it's an earnest belief in religious doctrine, or maybe it's just fear of change.

Whatever the case, SettingTheRecordStraight is just one of a fading group that has been continually pushed to fringes in Western Society. It is the same group that tried to fight against religious freedom, women's suffrage, abolition of slavery, and every other revolution society has born to right past wrongs.

It is sad for these types. They see society progressing from tribal insularity, religious superstition, doctrinal and institutionalized hate--all these things that made them feel special, unique and superior--and what are they left with? Not much except their shivering fear of change and sudden placement at the kooky dying fringes.

I'm sure it is disheartening for them to see that, even in a small Kansas town, people, even if they are (gasp!) gay, will be allowed the same benefits as a heterosexual couple. If it can happen in Kansas it can probably happen anywhere. That has to be absolutely frightening.

Oh yeah, if I can put a personal note straight to SettingTheRecordStraight: I find you disgusting.

Logicsound, you make sense about not engaging the trolls, but I couldn't help myself.
BTW - STTR - you may not think gay/lesbian couples can raise healthy children, but I know of traditional couples who also aren not fit parents. It's due to the person, not their sexual orientation.

You fail to make a rational or legal case for your point of view. Until then, you labor in vain in your attempt to include a societal endorsement of gay sex with those true ills of human history : legalization of abortion, racism, classism, sexism, genocide, etc.

And yet even when we're talking about a secular, civil ceremony (i.e. performed by a judge at the courthouse rather than by a minister in a church), people of the same sex are still not allowed to marry.

This is one of the problems those in favor of same-sex marriage keep holding on to. Blame it on the religious right-wing, like they're the only opposition. But when you look at the polls regarding who is opposed to same-sex marriage, you're going to find that the opposition is much, much more widespread. You simply can not win a battle without recognizing who your opponents really are.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:

"Yes, because the only people who could possibly care about this issue are angry gay people."

Just as the only people opoosed to government sanctioning of same-sex relationships must be religious right-wing homophobes, right? Again, bringing about change is not going to happen as long as the proponents of that change focus only on a small part of the opposition.

"You fail to make a rational or legal case for your point of view. "
Really?

(your quote) "As we all know, homosexual "marriage" is untennable because every society, across all people groups, in every moment in human history has rejected the gay sexual relationship as the foundation for birthing and rearing healthy children."

My point is that just because society has rejected (or accepted) something doesn't mean that it is just in doing so. And I put forth some evidence. I also put forth the idea that society (Western at least) has moved beyond many of these, though not all. And further I stated that at all points in history there are those like you who fight for continuance of these evils--in this case DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PEOPLE who have different a different sexual orientation than the norm.

You really didn't get that? Um, okay. I suppose I'll take your word. But wow.

"Until then, you labor in vain in your attempt to include a societal endorsement of gay sex with those true ills of human history: legalization of abortion, racism, classism, sexism, genocide, etc."

What are you talking about?

You are correct, I do not include the societal endorsement of gay sex with the true ills. I don't think it is a true ill. That was part of my point. How would a sexual relationship between two consenting adults be a social ill? That doesn't make sense. It affects no one except the two consenting adults, and they presumably enjoy it. Again, that's part of my argument. But thanks for reiterating it.

(Okay, okay, maybe I'm having a little fun with you and you actually meant:
"Until then, you labor in vain in your attempt to include a societal NON-endorsement of gay sex with those true ills of human history: legalization of abortion, racism, classism, sexism, genocide, etc.")

The social ill is DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PEOPLE FOR A RIDICULOUS AND ARBITRARY REASON AND ADORNING IT IN TRADITION AND RELIGIOUS DOGMA. Get it? That is my argument. That is what I wrote. Don't try to brush it off with condescension if you refuse to even understand what was stated. If you didn't get that, well...

btw: I for one am glad you post your thoughts. It's good for everyone to see the impotence of your arguments, the weakness of your refutations, the limits of your reading comprehension and the hollowness of your rhetoric. It well illustrates the shallow intellectual rigor you put into the issues you so confidently espouse. And the fact you dismiss rational arguments as irrational with a posture of condescension when not even understanding the very evident point dresses you, and in turn your side, in a perfectly ridiculous clown suit.

"Well, if you are opposed to providing equal rights based on someone's sexual orientation, you are-by definition-a homophobe (or a heterophobe, depending on your take). ... If you are opposed to governmental sactioning of same-sex marriage, the only way you can NOT be a homophobe is if you also oppose governmental sactioning of opposite-sex marriage."

You really need to stop using a name associated with "logic."

So a person opposed to the legalization of bestiality must be afraid of animals? What is someone opposed to polygamy afraid of?

So I guess all the people who are opposed to state-sponsored religion are afraid of religion? Geez, get a grip, your arguments are getting weak.

You and your sympathizers have created a brand new term with "homophobe." There is no definition of "homophobe" except that which you want it to be.

"Homophobe" is a political term, pure and simple, created by you (a homophile?) meant to elicit emotion, not rational thought. I actually applaud that you choose to use it because it reveals your lacking ability to engage in thoughtful discussion. Rather you prefer to belittle those with whom you disagree by using name calling, fear mongering and your ever-so-vile brand of hate speech.

"So a person opposed to the legalization of bestiality must be afraid of animals? What is someone opposed to polygamy afraid of?"

No, if you are in favor of the legalization of relations with dogs, but against the legalization of relations with cats, you are prejudiced against cats. If you support legalizing polygamy if it is 4 people, but not 5, you have a serious prejudice against the number 5.

"So I guess all the people who are opposed to state-sponsored religion are afraid of religion?"

No, but if you are in favor of state-sponsored Christianity, but against state-sponsored Judaism, you are prejudiced against Jews.

If you are against all marriage, that's just fine. If you support the government sponsoring one type of committed, loving, two-human, consenting relationship but not another, I don't know that you are necessarily a "homophobe" (as I would call it hatred, not fear) but you are definitely prejudiced.

"Homophobia is a commonly accepted term for people who don't like homosexuals. You are simplistically trying to reduce it to the root words, "homo" and "phobia" to make a point, but fail to realize that literally translated, homophobia is "fear of the same"."

Gee. I apologize.

I thought your last argument was weak.

"Society's rethinking of sexual orientation was crystallized in the term homophobia, which heterosexual psychologist George Weinberg coined in the late 1960s. Weinberg used homophobia to label heterosexuals' dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals as well as homosexuals' self loathing. The word first appeared in print in 1969 and was subsequently discussed at length in Weinberg's 1972 book, Society and the Healthy Homosexual."

"The American Heritage Dictionary (1992 edition) defines homophobia as "aversion to gay or homosexual people or their lifestyle or culture" and "behavior or an act based on this aversion." Other definitions identify homophobia as an irrational fear of homosexuality."

"And apparently you have a nasty habit of injecting your own interpretation into other peoples' comments."

Whereas you just inject whatever interpretation you want into words to fit your pointless statements. I did look it up (apparently you haven't), the definition of a phobia has to do with fear or aversion, not dislike or intolerance. You were the one who made a fool out of yourself by insisting that "Well, if you are opposed to providing equal rights based on someone's sexual orientation, you are-by definition-a homophobe." I notice the words "by definition," somehow I didn't see the words "by common English usage." Your spurious claim, repeated twice in the same post, was predicated on the assumption that opposition must be based on fear. You even tried to change what you said in a later post.

You made a stupid claim and got called on it ... stop trying to weasel out and make it look like everyone else should have known what you meant instead of what you said, especially as, despite the attempts at spin, it's not all that clear you didn't mean exactly what you did say.

Mr Wisenburg: That statement is a completely false statement. Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the statement that there was "no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton," was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?

Clinton: It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the if he if "is" means is and never has been, that is not--- that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.

My point here? Actually I don't have a point. Do you all have a point?

The reason that Kinzer and other intelligent, caring people bother with this issue is that they know that there is a hidden agenda to the "domestic registry" issue. As homosexuals readily admit among themselves, "This is just a start."

I am late to the discussion, but .... It seems the commenters got off track and into a debate (fight) over whether the registry or homosexuality is a good or bad idea.

The editorial in question was making another point all together. The writer apparently thinks the issue of whether city's should be allowed is a concern of state-wide interest.

So, what say you commenters on that? Should the state care about and/or adopt a policy that allows or prohibits cities from adopting such policies (given the fact that the state laws have many provisions prohibiting cities from doing certain things)?

"Comparing a relationship between two consenting adults of the same species to a one-sided, sexually perverse interaction between a person and an animal displays an astonishing lack of intelligence on your part."

Speaking of "an astonishing lack of intelligence," bright boy, it was, as you said, an anology, intended to do nothing more than point out the fallacy of your "logic" that only fear (oh, sorry, you changed that to intolerance when you got laughed off that argument, didn't you), I mean intolerance is the only basis of opposition.

You made a baseless claim that you couldn't defend, so you changed it to another you couldn't defend, and when that's challenged too, then I'm comparing "Comparing a relationship between two consenting adults of the same species to a one-sided, sexually perverse interaction between a person and an animal." Amusing that you didn't mention this when you thought you were winning the argument. Just as amusing as your focus on that one analogy, instead of maybe polygamy. Couldn't think of anything people opposed to polygamy are phobic or intolerant of? Crowds, maybe?

Just as a point of curiosity, 'logic'sound, is the president who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law a "homophobe?" How about the large number of Democratic Senators and Representatives who voted for it? Or the majority of the population of the country, for that matter? All of them phobic and intolerant? How grand to be you, one of the few who really see the truth.

Guess I just must be a 'logic'sound-phobe, or maybe 'logic'sound-intolerant, because I'm still not buying your BS, or any of your attempts to worm your way out of what you said.

Oh, and by the way, 'logic'sound, your choice to bring slavery into the discussion, to compare the denial of family health benefits to taking a race of people forcibly from their home a world away, selling them as property, and working them literally to death - that wasn't a weak analogy brought up only for its inflamatory nature? Are you always such a pompous j@ck@ss, or only when you can't win through 'logic?' Oh, wait, that would be all the time, wouldn't it?

But don't let that stop you from trying to distract from the fact that you're an idiot who made a statement you couldn't defend.

You really are a pompous @ss, aren't you? You scream like a baby when you think someone's trying to interpret your statements in a way you claim you didn't mean, but you have the audacity to speak for the majority of the population of the country - the great 'logic'sound knows what everyone is thinking and knows why more than half the people in the country make choices as they do. Although I notice you ignored the question of whether Bill Clinton is a homophobe for signing the DOMA. Gee, wonder why. You are a real joke.

Imagine you're at a bus stop in a large city. The bus comes, and 11 white people get on, 4 Asians, 7 Hispanics get on. When an African-American man tries to board, the bus driver says he can not. Well, this is obviously discrimination, right?

Or maybe the bus was full. Maybe if one of the white passengers had left the house 2 minutes later, it would have been him that didn't get on. Maybe if the African-American man had not been such a gentleman as to let the two elderly Asian women get on in front of him. Who knows.

For the edification of genius-boy, this particular example is not an analogy, it's closer to a parable. I am not drawing a direct comparison to same-sex marriage and the availability of bus seats (although some might argue that there are some similarities to the situation). The lesson of the parable (since I doubt genius-boy will get it) is that you can't just jump to conclusions that everything is based on fear, or intolerance, or dislike, or just good old prejudice, or whatever else you're going to try to claim you meant with your original statement. There may be some other reasons.

What are those other reasons? Unlike 'logic'sound-geniusboy, I wouldn't presume to either 1) assume that the majority of people in the United States only have one possible reason, there may be many, or 2) assume I know what those reasons are, nor will I presume to be (unlike genius-boy) the arbiter of whether or not those reasons are justified. Maybe some of the Democratic congressmen who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act did so for the simple reason that they couldn't figure out a way to pay for the projected increase in health benefits to federal employees. Maybe Clinton signed it as a trade off to get another piece of legislation he deemed more important through the Republican-controlled congress. Maybe the 55% of the population that opposes same-sex marriage has 1,000 different reasons among them, almost none of which are related to homophobia.

'logic'sound's statement that a person must be a homophobe (no matter what he's trying to claim that word means today) is ludicrous. And it does nothing but hurt the cause of those fighting for same-sex marriage. If you want to pigeon-hole the opposition into a neat and tidy package that your brainless skull can fathom and say it's all based on homophobia, fine - how's that tactic been working out, by the way? The proponents of gay rights bought into similar rhetoric when they voted for Bill Clinton - he was a Democrat and social liberal after all, and they'd definitely get what they wanted now that his two predecessors were gone, right? And after DOMA and don't-ask-don't-tell, they (and you) are all sitting there scratching their heads and saying "But... but ... he's a liberal, he can't be a homophobe!"